EU could face a massive influx by 2100 if carbon emissions hold steady

New research predicts that migrants applying for asylum in the European Union will nearly triple over the average of the last 15 years by 2100 if carbon emissions continue on their current path. The study suggests that cutting emissions could partially stem the tide, but even under an optimistic scenario, Europe could see asylum applications rise by at least a quarter. The study appears today in the journal Science.

“Europe is already conflicted about how many refugees to admit,” said the study’s senior author, Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) and a professor at the university’s Earth Institute. “Though poorer countries in hotter regions are most vulnerable to climate change, our findings highlight the extent to which countries are interlinked, and Europe will see increasing numbers of desperate people fleeing their home countries.”

Schlenker and study coauthor Anouch Missirian, a Ph.D. candidate at SIPA, compared asylum applications to the EU filed from 103 countries between 2000 and 2014, with temperature variations in the applicants’ home countries. They found that the more temperatures over each country’s agricultural region deviated from 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) during its growing season, the more likely people were to seek refuge abroad. Crops grow best at an average temperature of 20 degrees C, and so not surprisingly, hotter than normal temperatures increased asylum applications in hotter places, such as Iraq and Pakistan, and lowered them in colder places such as Serbia and Peru.

Combining the asylum-application data with projections of future warming, the researchers found that an increase of average global temperatures of 1.8 °C — an optimistic scenario in which carbon emissions flatten globally in the next few decades and then decline — would increase applications by 28 percent by 2100, translating into 98,000 extra applications to the EU each year. If carbon emissions continue on their current trajectory, with global temperatures rising by 2.6 C to 4.8°C by 2100, applications could increase by 188 percent, leading to an extra 660,000 applications filed each year.

Under the landmark climate deal struck in Paris in 2015, most of the world’s nations agreed to cut carbon emissions to limit warming by 2100 to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. President Trump’s recent decision to withdraw the United States, the world’s second largest carbon emitter, from the accord now jeopardizes that goal.

In a further setback to reducing U.S. carbon emissions, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency has proposed lowering the U.S. government’s “social cost” of carbon, or the estimated cost of sea-level rise, lower crop yields, and other climate-change related economic damages, from $42 per ton by 2020 to a low of $1 per ton. The EPA partly arrived at the lower figure by excluding the cost of U.S. emissions on other countries, yet as the study shows, effects in developing countries have clear spillovers on developed countries. “In the end, a failure to plan adequately for climate change by taking the full cost of carbon dioxide emissions into account will prove far more costly,” said Missirian, a fourth-year sustainable development major.

The research adds to a growing body of evidence that weather shocks can destabilize societies, stoke conflict and force people to flee their home countries. In a widely-cited 2011 study in Nature, a team of researchers led by Solomon Hsiang, then a graduate student at SIPA, linked modern El Niño drought cycles to increased violence and war globally.

More recently, researchers have highlighted the connection between the drying of the Middle East and ongoing conflict there. In a 2015 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, another team of Columbia researchers made the case that climate change made Syria’s 2006-2010 drought two to three times more likely, and that the drought was a catalyst for Syria’s 2011 uprising. The civil war that followed has so far claimed 500,000 lives, by one estimate, and forced 5.4 million Syrians to flee the country.

Germany has taken in the largest share of asylum-seekers from Syria and elsewhere, but increasingly faces a backlash from German voters worried about assimilation and loss of jobs. A wave of anti-immigrant sentiment elsewhere in Europe has led to Hungary building a wall to keep refugees out and influenced Great Britain’s decision to leave the European Union. In the United States, President Trump was elected in part on his promise to build a wall to block Mexican immigrants from entering the country illegally.

Hsiang, now an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the research, called the study an “incredibly important” wakeup call. “We will need to build new institutions and systems to manage this steady flow of asylum seekers,” he said. “As we have seen from recent experience in Europe, there are tremendous costs, both for refugees and their hosts, when we are caught flat footed. We should plan ahead and prepare.”

Colin Kelley, a climate scientist at Columbia’s International Research Institute for Climate and Society who linked climate change to Syria’s ongoing conflict, also praised the research. “It’s unclear how much more warming will occur between now and the end of the century, but the study clearly demonstrates just how much climate change acts as a threat multiplier. Wealthier countries can expect to feel the direct and indirect effects of weather shocks from manmade climate change in poorer, less resilient countries.”

The research was initiated at the request of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), which also provided funding. “These findings will be especially important to policymakers since they show that climate impacts can go beyond the borders of a single country by possibly driving higher migration flows,” said Juan-Carlos Ciscar, a senior expert at the JRC’s Economics of Climate Change, Energy and Transport Unit. “Further research should look at ways for developing countries to adapt their agricultural practices to climate change.”

Statistican William Briggs has already called out the paper for it’s statistical stupidity. He writes:

It is the dumbest, most idiotic use of statistics I have seen in over a decade. (And I have seen a lot.)

You have to possess a near-miraculous view of statistics, and a complete ignorance of politics, to have suggested or believe in this model. How come asylum applications aren’t swelling in chilly Chili [sic!]? They had, say, 6,000 years of history to draw upon yet they chose only the last fifteen? And they believe the hideously complex political relationship between Europe and (largely) the Levant can be described by quantifying each country’s “corruption index”? I despair.

…

Physically the study makes no sense, either. A handful of minor temperature changes is not what is driving asylum applications, as even a cursory reading of the daily headlines shows. To claim one has found a “non-linear” *causative* relationship in so short of record is absurd. These fellows ought to crack open a history book or two (written before this century).

Combining the asylum-application data with projections of future warming, the researchers found that an increase of average global temperatures of 1.8 °C — an optimistic scenario in which carbon emissions flatten globally in the next few decades and then decline — would increase applications by 28 percent by 2100, translating into 98,000 extra applications to the EU each year.

So, did they take into effect the increase in population and the per capita effect this would have? There might not be any “Climate” related increase in refuge seekers but for the natural population increase and the Per Capita effect

More recently, researchers have highlighted the connection between the drying of the Middle East and ongoing conflict there. In a 2015 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, another team of Columbia researchers made the case that climate change made Syria’s 2006-2010 drought two to three times more likely, and that the drought was a catalyst for Syria’s 2011 uprising.

The fighting in Syria isn’t related to their normal population, it is the global ISIS problem and the ISIS fighter influx into their country. It also isn’t a “Drying Effect” that is causing the fighting either. It is the Arab, Israeli conflict that has been ongoing since 1968, 1947, 1922, 750, 622, -1785 since both peoples have existed. Even Arabs can’t get along with Arabs so I guess the Israelis are in good company.

It’s time they did some field research with a student visa to NK or a backpacking trip to the mountains of Afghanistan or some reporting on conditions in the slums of Venezuela. Go for it placard holders. Move on.

I would think the machinations of Iran and various salafist Sunni Muslims have much more to do with refugees from the Levant than climate change. Add in the behavior of Angela Merkel, and bad weather is so minor a factor that it should be regarded as activists riding their favorite hobby horse.

“Europe is already conflicted about how many refugees to admit,” said the study’s senior author, Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) and a professor at the university’s Earth Institute.”

lol. Even if it was true, perhaps the good professor might then conclude that he should vote to leave the European Union. 🙂

Conflict never has anything to do with people mistreating each other. Or greed. All problems are caused by increases in temperature change. Rangers getting shot in the national parks in the Congo? Must have gotten hotter. Elephants and rhinos being poached? Must be an increase in unpredictable weather. Women being gang raped in Tahrir Square? Or multiple train stations and public areas in Europe? Must “weather shocks”.

If only we had purchased more carbon offsets. Then we would not have to worry about sexual harassment. Or bullying. Or obesity. Or…

Oh yes, Silver Dynamite, you are right on the money. I read this report with growing incredulity. In the end I was clutching my head in despair at the paucity of intellectual rigour and the complete lack of commonsense. And this face-reddening embarrassment is from Columbia University? How utterly humiliating for that seat of learning. Do they have no quality control mechanisms at CU?

Combining the asylum-application data with projections of future warming, the researchers found that an increase of average global temperatures of 1.8 °C — an optimistic scenario in which carbon emissions flatten globally in the next few decades and then decline — would increase applications by 28 percent by 2100, translating into 98,000 extra applications to the EU each year.

Okay, now is this going to be a sudden jump in 2100 or will it be a gradual increase over the period 2018 to 2100? After all, any temperature increase is going to be gradual. (If it ever happens at all.) So presumably these wonder predictors have supplied interim figures for 2020, 2030, 2050 and so on and we can then check well before 2100 whether their predictions were any good.

What is a ”Hotter” temperature? Is it animal, vegetable or mineral? I understand normal temperatures, lower temperatures and even higher temperatures but am completely confused by these ”Higher” ones (and yet to meet the rarer ”colder” temperature).

What??
“They found that the more temperatures over each country’s agricultural region deviated from 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) during its growing season, the more likely people were to seek refuge abroad. Crops grow best at an average temperature of 20 degrees C,. . .”
The researchers should visit California’s Central Valley and Coachella Valley. 20 deg C would be positively chilly during the height of the growing season. I think any commenters from corn and wheat and citrus growing areas would agree.

“In the end, a failure to plan adequately for climate change by taking the full cost of carbon dioxide emissions into account will prove far more costly,” said Missirian, a fourth-year sustainable development major.”

What the freak is a “sustainable development” major?

Does anyone who reads and comments here have a degree in “sustainable development”? If so could you please explain to me what the criteria is for such a degree.
Thank You.

They don’t receive an education in critical thinking anymore at most universities. Kids these days go to universities where they are re-educated and indoctrinated to think “sustainable development” is a usable degree which a business or construction firm could actually need. Instead, these students will find themselves working in an advocacy NGO/environmental group.

Most major university Civil Engineering departments teach community planning, energy usage, resource planning, transportation planning. Essentially a Civil Engineer can specialize in “sustainable development.” But Civil Engineering is hard engineering discipline with hard engineering mathematics courses that act as a gate-keeper to weed-out the intellectually lazy and/or improperly prepared students.

So my guess is this is kid is getting a Bachelor of Arts in Sustainable Development (i.e. not a Bachelor of Science degree). Which to say it is a fuzzy degree, sans engineering mathematics and stural courses that weed out weak students. Probably his degree courses are mostly about advocacy and communications without requiring the student to be able to undertake a hard engineering analysis of alternatives related to “sustainability.”

I scrolled-up and read that again. Missirian is PhD candidate at SIPA. That is the Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA). That kid couldn’t do a hard engineering analysis of alternatives (like a Civil Engineer does) if his life depended on it. He is merely getting a degree in propaganda (aka, international public affairs). A degree in international public relations s one where he has studied “sustainable development” which I suppose is useful to the UN and its NGO’s as a complete waste of money.

I thought they were talking about a third person at first, because I have never heard anyone refer to a PhD candidate as having a major. In a program, yes. Getting a PhD in “X”, yes. “…fourth-year sustainable development major” sounds like an undergraduate on the five year plan, and I do not mean the one where they have been working and going to school part time.

Here’s an idea … analyze the “statistical” relationship between asylum seekers and the amount of FREE STUFF promised to them by Western (formerly) Christian Nations ? D’ya wanna know WHY Middle Eastern and African Muslims fall all over themselves to get to Sweden ? Or why there is a permanent, massive, group of “French” Refugees camped on the banks of the English Channel just waiting for their first opportunity to grab an NGO boat to Dover? FREE food, FREE medical, FREE council housing, FREE spending $$$ … all for making it to the shores of Britain. I have NO IDEA why white Christians haven’t FLED these countries as they are becoming Refugees in their own nation of birth. Sad. Really, really, sad. What took multiple CENTURIES to build into a veritable human paradise will be destroyed in ONE.

“The research adds to a growing body of evidence that weather shocks can destabilize societies, stoke conflict and force people to flee their home countries.”

How strange. I look at the societies being destailised, conflicts being stoked and people fleeing their home countries and see only the results of the actions of the arrogant slugs forcing their version of “globalisation” down our throats. Perhaps my obviously faulty perception is due to the fact that my bank balance isn’t bigger than that of a middle-sized country.

A peaceful Christmas season and a happy new year to all here, especially Anthony and the mods.

I guess if you ignore all the more prominent and rational incentives for asylum-seekers to flee the Middle East and Africa for Europe, like war and instability, then you can blame your favorite reason instead.

It’s amusing how we keep getting told Mamma that we’re not measuring Earth’s average temperature but Earth’s average anomaly. Yet all of these doomsday scenarios talk about Earth’s average temperature increasing by so many degrees.

What is a journal with the stature of ‘Science’ doing publishing this ‘sustainability” PhD student activist swill? Climate scientists even claim there is no significant warming in the tropical and subtropical band to be expected. Personally, I met with the same temperatures in Lagos, Nigeria in the middle 1960s when the world was cooler as I did in the late 1990s and as they are reported today.

The extra-tropical arid regions are, on average, greening and becoming more productive and in the face of this are likely warming the nights and cooling the days. The Arctic is where all the warming is taking place~3C in a century (?) So the planet has warmed >1C, all in the Arctic -30C to – 27C or so!

It is only activist useful fools who prosecute their erroneous view and it suits climate clones to let them do it.

If you leave Africa once because of drought, possibly due to temperature increase, is it not balanced by the several times in a lifetime that Canadian Climate refugees go to Florida and Arizona every winter, ie moving to somewhere warmer, and multiple times ?

Very probably.
Put another way, all the climate refugees that arrive “here” will merely replace all the climate refugees that also left “here”. Let’s face it, humans already occupy most extremes of climate, from the very hot to the very cold. That is not going to change, and chiefly indicates just how adaptable humans already are. It’s only morons in ivory towers who can’t adapt to different climates.

If the people in the warmer zones migrate to the temperate zones, then surely the people in the cooler zones will migrate to the temperate zones. So why don’t we in the UK have an inuit or swede Norwegian Siberian immigration problem?

From the article: “EU could face a massive influx [of refugees] by 2100 if carbon emissions hold steady”

Well, I would say the EU has already experienced a massive influx of (economic) refugees.

By the year 2100, the EU will be a Caliphate, welfare and food and lodging assistance will no longer be available to new refugees, so the refugees will stop coming.

Currently, Merkel is paying the refugees to come in and ruin Western Europe with their “message of hate”, so it should be no surprise that a lot of poor people in the Middle East and Africa seem to think it is a good idea to move to the EU. And it is a good idea for them. They get treated like kings as compared to where they come from, so why wouldn’t they climb on board.

EU politicians are importing the seeds of their society’s destruction and seem oblivious to the danger. Too bad for Europe. It’s a shame such fools got into positions of power.

Talk about “POLITICAL science”!
People leave because of economic concerns. They could be natural (The Irish Potato Famine) or they could be political (fleeing Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, etc.).
How do the “scientist” that push this stuff sleep at night? (The politicians that do so can sleep through anything….except maybe Trump? 😎

A Conspiracy Theory: This research and similar is being promoted to get folks use to the notion that relinquishing your nation and culture is the high road. It has nothing to do with climate.

EU movers&shakers want migrants from such places. It will homogenize Europe and bring about Rapture.
50 years on, Europe’s many statues, public buildings, and cathedrals will be given the treatment of the Buddehas of Bamiyan and the Temple of Bel.
You read it here first.

There are several factors driving migration from Africa and the Mid East into Europe. None of them climate related. If the welfare benefits spigot in Europe were turned off the migration would likely slow to a trickle overnight. Austria is now experimenting with welfare reductions and we will see if it generates a migration out of Austria and into Germany. The hypothesis is that migration levels are largely dominated by welfare gradients.

There is only one factor responsible for the deluge of illegal migrants into Europe – the utter lack of birth control in African and Middle Eastern countries. Europe’s limp wristed refusal to deport illegal migrants merely encourages more irresponsibility in family planning in these countries.

Or maybe it has more to do with the, I don’t know, war, dictators, and most importantly, poverty? If you are poor then of course what you do, is to have more kids. Because bigger family means you have more people taking care of you, your family, and your land. Not to mention the fact that child mortality was a lot larger. It doesn’t make any sense for a poor family to only have one or two children. What happens if they die? Then what? Europe was no different. Family sizes were big here too, until we grew wealthier. Then people didn’t have to worry about survival anymore. Try living in a poor country in a poor family and then see how “irresponsible” it is.

Deporting illegal immigrants doesn’t stop then from coming. Just like making drugs and alcohol illegal didn’t stop people from taking them. It only drives these activities under ground.

Many illegal immigrants have been quite open about the fact that the reason they have decided to try to get to Europe because they became aware of a weakness in resolve in European countries and accordingly they knew that they would not be deported if they made it to Europe. I would question that these are people coming from utter poverty – it requires no small amount of hard cash to make it from sub Saharan Africa (for example) to Europe. I have every sympathy for people trying to improve their situation – but the mass unrestrained influx of relatively unskilled and poorly educated people with little or no cultural affinity with the countries they end up in will result in overwhelming the resources of these countries at the expense of the citizens of these countries. The flow has to be restricted – communication is excellent worldwide and the word would quickly spread if European countries actually started enforcing their immigration laws again – resources could then be redirected at genuine refugees rather than economic migrants that make up the majority of “asylum applicants” Simultaneously resources could be applied more intelligently in trying to improve the economies and systems of sub Saharan African countries – in particular by more proactive and direct applications of aid to try to ensure those who need it most benefit more directly.

In one social science course we were being taught that correlation does not match cause and effect and we were set exercise of finding the most ridiculous cause and effect based on correlation. The winner was aids is caused by driving Toyota 4 X 4 vehicles. The spread matched sales of these vehicles in one African country with near perfect correlation.

Humans are very adaptable to their environment, global warming is about a vague 1 degree C rise since the cold period during the 1970’s, there has been a 20 year “pause” in global warming in the later half of that period. Long term, our planet is actually cooling since the Holocene climatic optimum according to all climate scientists.

It can be ruled out that anyone is seeking asylum due to a tiny temperature measurement on a global scale.

There is nothing wrong with immigration, people seeking asylum should be accepted with open arms regardless of their reason. Immigrants need to understand that the country accepting them expects them to integrate into their society and peacefully coexist.

Mass immigration, the rape and pillage of a society is a tactic of warfare. There is a difference…

I’m sure the immigration crisis have nothing to do with the fact that Syria is a warzone, and where its authoritarian and oppressive regime kills its own people. Humans have waged war and immigrated to other lands for thousands of years, but somehow only the latest ones were caused by climate change. And of course it’s more fashionable to blame climate change. It shows how much you “care” about the world, and especially for politicians, it gets you votes.

There was immigration caused by a cold period between 1845 and 1849, 10’s of thousands of Irish people migrated to America, also in the 1700’s, I remember reading about how Canada would not allow Irish immigrants to disembark from the ships they were on and hundreds died.

People do not usually immigrate during times when the climate is favourable, if crops are thriving and farming is good, people are not being squeezed by the political racketeers of the time.

BBC have it nowHigher temperatures linked to EU asylum figures
Seem’s the normal way it works to me : That such dirty PR ideas are curated by GreenBlob PR teams and then pushed out to compliant media …who no doubt think they will one day win Nobel Prize for saving the planet.
I wouldn’t be surprised that such teams don’t phone “so called scientists” and say “hey why don’t you produce use a study which concludes XYZ”.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy